Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

From September 2017 to October 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the “C” restaurant located in Busan Shipping Daegu, the victim D, who operated the said restaurant, did not embezzled the proceeds from the operation of the restaurant; (b) was publicly aware of the fact that “D embezzled KRW 30 million to the employees E and lessor F, etc. of the said restaurant; and (c)” under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act, the term “fact” is rather than “defluent fact,” but rather, the term “fact,” the value judgment or assessment,” and thus, the crime of defamation under Article 307(1) may be established either regardless of whether the alleged fact was true or false; and (d) the crime of defamation under Article 307(1) may be established where, even if the alleged fact was a false fact, the actor did not have awareness of the falsity, the victim’s reputation was damaged (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18024, Dec. 37, 2007).

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. During the fourth trial record, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the witness D, the statement of the witness D, the Defendant, and the defense counsel stated that the Defendant stated that “I would file a complaint if H would not be embezzled or embezzled,” respectively, to F and restaurant employees E, and that there was no time limit for her embezzlement to the effect that I would have embezzled the victim directly referring to the victim and embezzled 30 million won as stated in the facts charged.

In light of each evidence of the judgment, the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted, since the facts charged in the judgment can be sufficiently recognized.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 307 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and the choice of punishment.